20 Answers

I’m not sure you understand what the ruling by the supreme court was all about. It was a ruling that the vote could not be counted differently. The whole issue of dimples was the problem. Regardless the vote has been recounted many times always with the same result, Bush won. More recounts would not change that which is why the Democrats wanted to count them differently to try and get a different result.

I will admit you guys still seem to get animated over this even though it is a Red Herring.

Regardless, I hold that the count is rigged anyway.
Less than half a percent difference. I do not buy that for a second.
In most dictatorships, fake elections give results in the high 90 percent range, in the colonies it is a near 50/50 number. Both transparently fake.

If you study the people that were part of the Bush administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Pearl…and of course the father GB) you begin to understand that there has been an agenda for a very long time by some people that have been allied for years to move the world into a certain direction, both because of philosophy and money. Until we change the laws regarding big money being able to fund candidates and put a cap on it legally, we are not going to have a genuine democracy.

@Jaxk Sure I understand what it was about. It was about not investigating claims of election fraud and instead just appointing their boy.@ragingloli That’s the way it seems.@elbanditoroso Nice of you to say so. However I bring this up because there has been some commotion here today about new voter rules regarding voters needing IDs to vote. Seems like much ado over nothing if in fact it doesn’t matter because the whole thing is rigged.@clothedinsun And didn’t the US Supreme Court recently rule on unlimited corporate spending on the candidates?@Darth_Algar Nor has it ever been decided by Supreme Court appointment overriding election fraud issues…until that election that is.

I suspect folks could keep arguing over the Supreme Court’s ruling for decades to come. However I was addressing @ragingloli‘s specific point about Gore receiving more votes, not whether the SCOTUS “appointed” Bush or not.

@Darth_Algarfolks could keep arguing over the Supreme Court’s ruling for decades to come.

There’s nothing to argue about. It was done so blatantly and with no concern to hide the truth of what they were doing from the citizens.

I was addressing @ragingloli‘s specific point about Gore receiving more votes

Actually, you didn’t argue @ragingloli‘s point in re more votes at all, but rather you attempted to point out to Loli that the presidency is not decided by popular vote. (You then failed to explain the electoral college to her).

And here, finally, you were correct insofar as those running the show want us to believe that is what’s going on.

What was a factor in the Florida race being so close that it led to the SCOTUS farce was not that the election itself was rigged, but that there was an effort to deter Gore voters through out Florida on trumped up reasons for exclusion. There was a Republican State effort to purge the voter rolls of “felons” which disenfranchised a number of eligible voters.

It wasn’t the SCOTUS ruling that pointed out the election was rigged, it was all the efforts on the ground it certain states that made it close.

I would love to argue this further but to argue there needs to be some understanding of the issue. We have one person complaining that it shows we’re no a democracy, True enough, we never were, we’re a republic. Another complains that the popular vote did not determine the winner. True enough it never has has, the elections are determined by the electoral college. One says the president was appointed by the SCOTUS. not even close since the vote was counted and Bush won. It was then recounted and Bush won. It was then hand counted and Bush won. It was only when the Democrats tried to change the definition of what was a vote that the Supreme Court said, you can’t do that. Hell, the Democrats even tried to count votes for Buchanan as votes for Gore, claiming that democrats were too stupid to figure out which hole to punch. Actually they may have a point on that one.

Your issue is not an issue and never was. It is merely the hysterical ranting of a party that lost.

I’m kinda with Ragingloli on this. I have a very hard time believing elections come down to a few percentage points. And I am talking popular vote here. Would you believe a toothpaste poll that was that close? I just don’t see how we are that evenly split.

Not rigged, just really poor election practices. Even Pat Buchanan jokes that he was worried that he might split the Republican vote in FL, but because of the ballots in some counties he won it for Bush, because some Democrats voted for him instead of Gore by mistake.

I think what that election shows is that American should not be so high and mighty, and should not judge so fast when they hear of problems with elections in other countries. Just think about it; a problem in the state where the brother of one of the Presidential candidates is the governor. It sounds so third world. The only thing maybe we can be proud of was there weren’t dangerous riots in the streets. Maybe there were some I don’t know of? I hope not.

I think they should have held another vote in FL with a better system in the counties in question only allowing those who voted the first time to vote.

I think that the fact that we have voting machines that can be hacked , which has been shown time and time again, is enough to say that our elections are all fraudulent.

I also believe that the media(or whoever controls it) has so much influence over public opinion, that there will never be a candidate who gets close enough to presidency that has already not been approved by the “elites,” and that elections are nothing more than a charade to keep Americans believing that they have a choice who will bring about change.

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy” (Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966.)